Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The pursuer brought the issues under the consideration of the Court, and maintained that, as by the 25th article of the regulations 1695, it was incompetent to set a decree-arbitral aside, ‘upon any cause or reason whatever, unless that of corruption, bribery, or falsehood,’ instead of the word ‘wrongfully’ in the issue, there should be inserted the words ‘corruptly or fraudulently.’
The defenders, on the other hand, referred to the case of Sharp and Mackenzie v. Bickerdike and Co. in the House of Lords, 24 Feb. 1815, (3 Dow , 102,) as shewing that, without alleging corruption or fraud on the part of an arbiter, the not hearing parties is, per se, a sufficient ground of reduction of his award; see also Heggie and Co. 1 Feb. 1825, and Glennie, 24 Feb. 1825, S. & D.
For the Pursuer, Keay, Skene, Marshall. H. Macqueen, W. S. Agent. For the Defenders, Dean of Fac. (Hope,) A. Wood. J. Macdonell, W. S. Agent.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.